@Squanmom: Don't think it's over by any means. The dysfunction generated by this BOE is no where near over.
@Local Reader: Don't be so quick to criticize John Winterstella's words and votes. When it all plays out he could be the one who was right. He's already got the well-paid board attorney Armen McOmber admitting he made a mistake.
Only the faces change. The incompetence remains the same.

John Winterstella just likes to hear himself talk. Anyone who sat through this years MES graduation understands that!!

@Waverider: You couldn't be more wrong about who you think I am. No I'm not a Cowboys fan and no, I don't own a pizzeria. But you do so perfectly illustrate the ignorant mentality so prevalent now about how on nothing but the sheerest hunch and suspicion, no matter how factless, you and your ilk are ready to accuse, defame and malign someone who you think you know who it is but it isn't. Why check your facts or obtain proof waverider? Would that take too much time for you or it just isn't necessary for you to begin pointing the finger pointing and accusing? Much more fun for you to do it the ignorant way I'm sure. A complete waste of time for you to at least try to be ethical. Hey here's a plan waverider.....why not take half the people from the bar at Maria's and put them on the school board? What a plan to move the BOE in the right direction!

@Local Reader: Current members I am referring to.

Couldn't agree with you more. Take the time to get an experienced professional that isn't tied to any of the secret handshake clubs in town, won't be influenced or pressured to do something or make teaching appointments and promises based on long time relationships or favors.

You have once again proved your lack of knowledge and arrogance, Lonestar.

First and foremost, no one brought in an "experienced professional," rather a person who had never been a Superintendent who was at the time involved in litigation with their prior district who declined to promote her to that role. You can find those FACTS online. So, thank those who hired her and specifically those who REHIRED her after already having proved she could not manage the district.

Secondly, you already have a problem with the "newest member?" I don't frankly think anyone on the board should leave, but John W is being traded out apparently for the other you refer to, Pumpy. Is that good or bad? We shall see.

Lastly, you imply that because certain people might dine at a long time local establishment, they shouldn't be on the board? Would that same rule apply to Council? What about Council people who OWN local bars? What about a boe candidate who RUNS a bar?

Please post for us the acceptable dining establishments that you would like to see added to the ethics forms for board members.

Cronyism is never acceptable. When it's put into practice, what's 'best for the town' quickly becomes what's best for the officials involved.

Perhaps you weren't following along closely @Lonestar, the comments above suggest that a new Superintendent might not being too intertwined in the local political quagmires would be good. Somehow you interpreted this to mean board members shouldn't be local or have a history with the district. That is incorrect.

Secondly, if you're a "taker" as you implied, shame on you. "Calling in a favor" to gain employment for yourself or a relative is not only improper, it's deceitful. Especially in a learning institution. Many of us realize that might not stop someone like you, but it's still wrong.